|
Re: [VOTE] Vitess project proposal (incubation)
+1 (non-binding)
toggle quoted messageShow quoted text
On Thu, Jan 25, 2018 at 08:50 am, Chris Aniszczyk wrote:
ase vote (+1/0/-1) on this thread... remember that the TOC h
|
|
|
Re: [VOTE] Vitess project proposal (incubation)
+1 non-binding
From: <cncf-toc@...> on behalf of Chris Aniszczyk <caniszczyk@...>
Reply-To: "cncf-toc@..." <cncf-toc@...>
Date: Thursday, January 25, 2018 at 8:50 AM
To: "cncf-toc@..." <cncf-toc@...>
Subject: [cncf-toc] [VOTE] Vitess project proposal (incubation)
The TOC has decided to invite Vitess (https://github.com/youtube/vitess)
as an INCUBATION level CNCF project, sponsored by Brian Grant from the TOC.
Vitess is a MySQL-compatible data orchestrator/platform. It orchestrates management of MySQL instances and has been serving all YouTube database traffic since 2011. Vitess has grown to encompass tens of thousands of MySQL nodes. It is also used by companies
such as HubSpot, Slack and Square.
|
|
|
Re: [VOTE] Vitess project proposal (incubation)
Jonathan Boulle <jon@...>
toggle quoted messageShow quoted text
On 30 January 2018 at 06:14, Sugu Sougoumarane <ssougou@...> wrote: Many of these companies have talked to us, and we are still in some form of conversation with some of them. The logos we've listed are only those from whom we've received explicit permission from.
PS: mineraftly is an aweseom find! LOL.
PPS: I missed Nozzle's contribution in my original response. Ironically, they are the most noteworthy contributors because they're refactoring our helm charts.
|
|
|
Re: updating what it means to be "Cloud Native"
Hi Brian, Thank you. This is very timely with some of the efforts that are underway with the CNCF website. We intend to have a high level messaging on several use cases and applications.
Regards, Dee
On Tue, Jan 30, 2018 at 9:30 AM, Brian Grant via Lists.Cncf.Io <briangrant=google.com@...> wrote: The CNCF Charter contains a definition of "Cloud Native" that was very Kubernetes-focused. This definition proved to be inadequate during a number of recent discussions, particularly those around "cloud-native storage" in the Storage WG. I would like to update the definition. My first attempt follows.
Existing charter text: The Foundation’s mission is to create and drive the adoption of a new computing paradigm that is optimized for modern distributed systems environments capable of scaling to tens of thousands of self healing multi-tenant nodes. Cloud native systems will have the following properties: (a) Container packaged. Running applications and processes in software containers as an isolated unit of application deployment, and as a mechanism to achieve high levels of resource isolation. Improves overall developer experience, fosters code and component reuse and simplify operations for cloud native applications. (b) Dynamically managed. Actively scheduled and actively managed by a central orchestrating process. Radically improve machine efficiency and resource utilization while reducing the cost associated with maintenance and operations. (c) Micro-services oriented. Loosely coupled with dependencies explicitly described (e.g. through service endpoints). Significantly increase the overall agility and maintainability of applications. The foundation will shape the evolution of the technology to advance the state of the art for application management, and to make the technology ubiquitous and easily available through reliable interfaces. Proposed text: The Foundation’s mission is to create and drive the adoption of a new computing paradigm, dubbed Cloud-Native computing, designed to facilitate a high velocity of change to applications, services, and infrastructure at scale in modern distributed-systems environments such as public clouds and private datacenters, while providing high degrees of security, reliability, and availability. To that end, the Foundation seeks to shape the evolution of the technology to advance the state of the art for application management and to foster an ecosystem of Cloud-Native technologies that are interoperable through well defined interfaces, and which are portable, vendor-neutral, and ubiquitous. The following are some attributes of Cloud Native: Cloud-native services should enable self-service. For instance, cloud-native resources should be self-provisioned from an elastic pool that for typical, on-demand usage appears to be of unlimited capacity. Cloud-native environments are dynamic. They necessitate self-healing and adaptability of applications and services running in such environments. Cloud-native applications, services, and infrastructure facilitate high-velocity management at scale via continuous automation, which is enabled by externalizing control, supporting dynamic configuration, and providing observability. In particular, resource usage is measured to enable optimal and efficient use. Cloud-native services and infrastructure are decoupled from applications, with seamless and transparent consumption experiences.
Non-exhaustive, non-exclusive examples of mechanisms and approaches that promote Cloud-Native approaches include: Immutable infrastructure: Replace individual components and resources rather than updating them in place, which rejuvenates the components/resources, mitigates configuration drift, and facilitates repeatability with predictability, which is essential for high-velocity operations at scale. Application containers: Running applications and processes in containers as units of application deployment isolates them from their operational environments as well as from each other, facilitates higher levels of resource isolation, fosters component reuse, enables portability, increases observability, and standardizes lifecycle management. Microservices: Loosely coupled microservices significantly increase the overall agility and maintainability of applications, particularly for larger organizations. Service meshes: Service meshes decouple service access from the provider topology, which reduces the risk of operational changes, and support inter-component observability. Declarative configuration: Intent-oriented configuration lets users focus on the What rather than the How, and reserves latitude for automated systems achieve the desired state. Event-driven execution: Enables agile, reactive automated processes, and facilitates systems integration.
As new Cloud-Native techniques and technologies emerge, they will be incorporated into the Foundation’s portfolio of recommended practices, approaches, and projects.
|
|
|
Re: updating what it means to be "Cloud Native"
Paul Fremantle <paul@...>
toggle quoted messageShow quoted text
On 30 January 2018 at 18:06, alexis richardson <alexis@...> wrote: Paul
Do you agree that mesh is helpful, but otherwise neither necessary nor sufficient?
A
On Tue, 30 Jan 2018, 18:05 Paul Fremantle, < paul@...> wrote: I think the overall definition is much better.
I really like how service meshes enable DRY and declarative intent, but there are lots of other important technologies (such as network attached storage, software defined firewalls, message brokers, etc) that also might been seen as important to successful cloud native architectures. All the other elements of your list seem to be about approaches not mechanisms, hence the service mesh line therefore seems to be a different category.
Paul
|
|
|
Re: updating what it means to be "Cloud Native"
|
|
|
Re: updating what it means to be "Cloud Native"
Paul
Do you agree that mesh is helpful, but otherwise neither necessary nor sufficient?
A
On Tue, 30 Jan 2018, 18:05 Paul Fremantle, < paul@...> wrote: I think the overall definition is much better.
I really like how service meshes enable DRY and declarative intent, but there are lots of other important technologies (such as network attached storage, software defined firewalls, message brokers, etc) that also might been seen as important to successful cloud native architectures. All the other elements of your list seem to be about approaches not mechanisms, hence the service mesh line therefore seems to be a different category.
Paul
|
|
|
Re: updating what it means to be "Cloud Native"
Paul Fremantle <paul@...>
I think the overall definition is much better.
I really like how service meshes enable DRY and declarative intent, but there are lots of other important technologies (such as network attached storage, software defined firewalls, message brokers, etc) that also might been seen as important to successful cloud native architectures. All the other elements of your list seem to be about approaches not mechanisms, hence the service mesh line therefore seems to be a different category.
Paul
On 30 January 2018 at 17:48, alexis richardson <alexis@...> wrote: Nice one Brian
Once you said "cloud native is automation"
Re the second section, I suggest "promote... but are not necessary for". In particular i am not convinced immutability is quite "right", and service mesh is overkill for many use cases
The CNCF Charter contains a definition of "Cloud Native" that was very Kubernetes-focused. This definition proved to be inadequate during a number of recent discussions, particularly those around "cloud-native storage" in the Storage WG. I would like to update the definition. My first attempt follows.
Existing charter text: The Foundation’s mission is to create and drive the adoption of a new computing paradigm that is optimized for modern distributed systems environments capable of scaling to tens of thousands of self healing multi-tenant nodes. Cloud native systems will have the following properties: (a) Container packaged. Running applications and processes in software containers as an isolated unit of application deployment, and as a mechanism to achieve high levels of resource isolation. Improves overall developer experience, fosters code and component reuse and simplify operations for cloud native applications. (b) Dynamically managed. Actively scheduled and actively managed by a central orchestrating process. Radically improve machine efficiency and resource utilization while reducing the cost associated with maintenance and operations. (c) Micro-services oriented. Loosely coupled with dependencies explicitly described (e.g. through service endpoints). Significantly increase the overall agility and maintainability of applications. The foundation will shape the evolution of the technology to advance the state of the art for application management, and to make the technology ubiquitous and easily available through reliable interfaces. Proposed text: The Foundation’s mission is to create and drive the adoption of a new computing paradigm, dubbed Cloud-Native computing, designed to facilitate a high velocity of change to applications, services, and infrastructure at scale in modern distributed-systems environments such as public clouds and private datacenters, while providing high degrees of security, reliability, and availability. To that end, the Foundation seeks to shape the evolution of the technology to advance the state of the art for application management and to foster an ecosystem of Cloud-Native technologies that are interoperable through well defined interfaces, and which are portable, vendor-neutral, and ubiquitous. The following are some attributes of Cloud Native: Cloud-native services should enable self-service. For instance, cloud-native resources should be self-provisioned from an elastic pool that for typical, on-demand usage appears to be of unlimited capacity. Cloud-native environments are dynamic. They necessitate self-healing and adaptability of applications and services running in such environments. Cloud-native applications, services, and infrastructure facilitate high-velocity management at scale via continuous automation, which is enabled by externalizing control, supporting dynamic configuration, and providing observability. In particular, resource usage is measured to enable optimal and efficient use. Cloud-native services and infrastructure are decoupled from applications, with seamless and transparent consumption experiences.
Non-exhaustive, non-exclusive examples of mechanisms and approaches that promote Cloud-Native approaches include: Immutable infrastructure: Replace individual components and resources rather than updating them in place, which rejuvenates the components/resources, mitigates configuration drift, and facilitates repeatability with predictability, which is essential for high-velocity operations at scale. Application containers: Running applications and processes in containers as units of application deployment isolates them from their operational environments as well as from each other, facilitates higher levels of resource isolation, fosters component reuse, enables portability, increases observability, and standardizes lifecycle management. Microservices: Loosely coupled microservices significantly increase the overall agility and maintainability of applications, particularly for larger organizations. Service meshes: Service meshes decouple service access from the provider topology, which reduces the risk of operational changes, and support inter-component observability. Declarative configuration: Intent-oriented configuration lets users focus on the What rather than the How, and reserves latitude for automated systems achieve the desired state. Event-driven execution: Enables agile, reactive automated processes, and facilitates systems integration.
As new Cloud-Native techniques and technologies emerge, they will be incorporated into the Foundation’s portfolio of recommended practices, approaches, and projects.
|
|
|
Re: updating what it means to be "Cloud Native"
Nice one Brian
Once you said "cloud native is automation"
Re the second section, I suggest "promote... but are not necessary for". In particular i am not convinced immutability is quite "right", and service mesh is overkill for many use cases
The CNCF Charter contains a definition of "Cloud Native" that was very Kubernetes-focused. This definition proved to be inadequate during a number of recent discussions, particularly those around "cloud-native storage" in the Storage WG. I would like to update the definition. My first attempt follows.
Existing charter text: The Foundation’s mission is to create and drive the adoption of a new computing paradigm that is optimized for modern distributed systems environments capable of scaling to tens of thousands of self healing multi-tenant nodes. Cloud native systems will have the following properties: (a) Container packaged. Running applications and processes in software containers as an isolated unit of application deployment, and as a mechanism to achieve high levels of resource isolation. Improves overall developer experience, fosters code and component reuse and simplify operations for cloud native applications. (b) Dynamically managed. Actively scheduled and actively managed by a central orchestrating process. Radically improve machine efficiency and resource utilization while reducing the cost associated with maintenance and operations. (c) Micro-services oriented. Loosely coupled with dependencies explicitly described (e.g. through service endpoints). Significantly increase the overall agility and maintainability of applications. The foundation will shape the evolution of the technology to advance the state of the art for application management, and to make the technology ubiquitous and easily available through reliable interfaces. Proposed text: The Foundation’s mission is to create and drive the adoption of a new computing paradigm, dubbed Cloud-Native computing, designed to facilitate a high velocity of change to applications, services, and infrastructure at scale in modern distributed-systems environments such as public clouds and private datacenters, while providing high degrees of security, reliability, and availability. To that end, the Foundation seeks to shape the evolution of the technology to advance the state of the art for application management and to foster an ecosystem of Cloud-Native technologies that are interoperable through well defined interfaces, and which are portable, vendor-neutral, and ubiquitous. The following are some attributes of Cloud Native: Cloud-native services should enable self-service. For instance, cloud-native resources should be self-provisioned from an elastic pool that for typical, on-demand usage appears to be of unlimited capacity. Cloud-native environments are dynamic. They necessitate self-healing and adaptability of applications and services running in such environments. Cloud-native applications, services, and infrastructure facilitate high-velocity management at scale via continuous automation, which is enabled by externalizing control, supporting dynamic configuration, and providing observability. In particular, resource usage is measured to enable optimal and efficient use. Cloud-native services and infrastructure are decoupled from applications, with seamless and transparent consumption experiences.
Non-exhaustive, non-exclusive examples of mechanisms and approaches that promote Cloud-Native approaches include: Immutable infrastructure: Replace individual components and resources rather than updating them in place, which rejuvenates the components/resources, mitigates configuration drift, and facilitates repeatability with predictability, which is essential for high-velocity operations at scale. Application containers: Running applications and processes in containers as units of application deployment isolates them from their operational environments as well as from each other, facilitates higher levels of resource isolation, fosters component reuse, enables portability, increases observability, and standardizes lifecycle management. Microservices: Loosely coupled microservices significantly increase the overall agility and maintainability of applications, particularly for larger organizations. Service meshes: Service meshes decouple service access from the provider topology, which reduces the risk of operational changes, and support inter-component observability. Declarative configuration: Intent-oriented configuration lets users focus on the What rather than the How, and reserves latitude for automated systems achieve the desired state. Event-driven execution: Enables agile, reactive automated processes, and facilitates systems integration.
As new Cloud-Native techniques and technologies emerge, they will be incorporated into the Foundation’s portfolio of recommended practices, approaches, and projects.
|
|
|
Re: updating what it means to be "Cloud Native"
Chris Aniszczyk
I converted this to a gdoc for easier editing/commenting for now:
Thanks Brian for spearheading this discussion.
On Tue, Jan 30, 2018 at 11:30 AM, Brian Grant via Lists.Cncf.Io <briangrant=google.com@...> wrote: The CNCF Charter contains a definition of "Cloud Native" that was very Kubernetes-focused. This definition proved to be inadequate during a number of recent discussions, particularly those around "cloud-native storage" in the Storage WG. I would like to update the definition. My first attempt follows.
Existing charter text: The Foundation’s mission is to create and drive the adoption of a new computing paradigm that is optimized for modern distributed systems environments capable of scaling to tens of thousands of self healing multi-tenant nodes. Cloud native systems will have the following properties: (a) Container packaged. Running applications and processes in software containers as an isolated unit of application deployment, and as a mechanism to achieve high levels of resource isolation. Improves overall developer experience, fosters code and component reuse and simplify operations for cloud native applications. (b) Dynamically managed. Actively scheduled and actively managed by a central orchestrating process. Radically improve machine efficiency and resource utilization while reducing the cost associated with maintenance and operations. (c) Micro-services oriented. Loosely coupled with dependencies explicitly described (e.g. through service endpoints). Significantly increase the overall agility and maintainability of applications. The foundation will shape the evolution of the technology to advance the state of the art for application management, and to make the technology ubiquitous and easily available through reliable interfaces. Proposed text: The Foundation’s mission is to create and drive the adoption of a new computing paradigm, dubbed Cloud-Native computing, designed to facilitate a high velocity of change to applications, services, and infrastructure at scale in modern distributed-systems environments such as public clouds and private datacenters, while providing high degrees of security, reliability, and availability. To that end, the Foundation seeks to shape the evolution of the technology to advance the state of the art for application management and to foster an ecosystem of Cloud-Native technologies that are interoperable through well defined interfaces, and which are portable, vendor-neutral, and ubiquitous. The following are some attributes of Cloud Native: Cloud-native services should enable self-service. For instance, cloud-native resources should be self-provisioned from an elastic pool that for typical, on-demand usage appears to be of unlimited capacity. Cloud-native environments are dynamic. They necessitate self-healing and adaptability of applications and services running in such environments. Cloud-native applications, services, and infrastructure facilitate high-velocity management at scale via continuous automation, which is enabled by externalizing control, supporting dynamic configuration, and providing observability. In particular, resource usage is measured to enable optimal and efficient use. Cloud-native services and infrastructure are decoupled from applications, with seamless and transparent consumption experiences.
Non-exhaustive, non-exclusive examples of mechanisms and approaches that promote Cloud-Native approaches include: Immutable infrastructure: Replace individual components and resources rather than updating them in place, which rejuvenates the components/resources, mitigates configuration drift, and facilitates repeatability with predictability, which is essential for high-velocity operations at scale. Application containers: Running applications and processes in containers as units of application deployment isolates them from their operational environments as well as from each other, facilitates higher levels of resource isolation, fosters component reuse, enables portability, increases observability, and standardizes lifecycle management. Microservices: Loosely coupled microservices significantly increase the overall agility and maintainability of applications, particularly for larger organizations. Service meshes: Service meshes decouple service access from the provider topology, which reduces the risk of operational changes, and support inter-component observability. Declarative configuration: Intent-oriented configuration lets users focus on the What rather than the How, and reserves latitude for automated systems achieve the desired state. Event-driven execution: Enables agile, reactive automated processes, and facilitates systems integration.
As new Cloud-Native techniques and technologies emerge, they will be incorporated into the Foundation’s portfolio of recommended practices, approaches, and projects.
-- Chris Aniszczyk (@cra) | +1-512-961-6719
|
|
|
updating what it means to be "Cloud Native"
The CNCF Charter contains a definition of "Cloud Native" that was very Kubernetes-focused. This definition proved to be inadequate during a number of recent discussions, particularly those around "cloud-native storage" in the Storage WG. I would like to update the definition. My first attempt follows.
Existing charter text: The Foundation’s mission is to create and drive the adoption of a new computing paradigm that is optimized for modern distributed systems environments capable of scaling to tens of thousands of self healing multi-tenant nodes. Cloud native systems will have the following properties: (a) Container packaged. Running applications and processes in software containers as an isolated unit of application deployment, and as a mechanism to achieve high levels of resource isolation. Improves overall developer experience, fosters code and component reuse and simplify operations for cloud native applications. (b) Dynamically managed. Actively scheduled and actively managed by a central orchestrating process. Radically improve machine efficiency and resource utilization while reducing the cost associated with maintenance and operations. (c) Micro-services oriented. Loosely coupled with dependencies explicitly described (e.g. through service endpoints). Significantly increase the overall agility and maintainability of applications. The foundation will shape the evolution of the technology to advance the state of the art for application management, and to make the technology ubiquitous and easily available through reliable interfaces. Proposed text: The Foundation’s mission is to create and drive the adoption of a new computing paradigm, dubbed Cloud-Native computing, designed to facilitate a high velocity of change to applications, services, and infrastructure at scale in modern distributed-systems environments such as public clouds and private datacenters, while providing high degrees of security, reliability, and availability. To that end, the Foundation seeks to shape the evolution of the technology to advance the state of the art for application management and to foster an ecosystem of Cloud-Native technologies that are interoperable through well defined interfaces, and which are portable, vendor-neutral, and ubiquitous. The following are some attributes of Cloud Native: Cloud-native services should enable self-service. For instance, cloud-native resources should be self-provisioned from an elastic pool that for typical, on-demand usage appears to be of unlimited capacity. Cloud-native environments are dynamic. They necessitate self-healing and adaptability of applications and services running in such environments. Cloud-native applications, services, and infrastructure facilitate high-velocity management at scale via continuous automation, which is enabled by externalizing control, supporting dynamic configuration, and providing observability. In particular, resource usage is measured to enable optimal and efficient use. Cloud-native services and infrastructure are decoupled from applications, with seamless and transparent consumption experiences.
Non-exhaustive, non-exclusive examples of mechanisms and approaches that promote Cloud-Native approaches include: Immutable infrastructure: Replace individual components and resources rather than updating them in place, which rejuvenates the components/resources, mitigates configuration drift, and facilitates repeatability with predictability, which is essential for high-velocity operations at scale. Application containers: Running applications and processes in containers as units of application deployment isolates them from their operational environments as well as from each other, facilitates higher levels of resource isolation, fosters component reuse, enables portability, increases observability, and standardizes lifecycle management. Microservices: Loosely coupled microservices significantly increase the overall agility and maintainability of applications, particularly for larger organizations. Service meshes: Service meshes decouple service access from the provider topology, which reduces the risk of operational changes, and support inter-component observability. Declarative configuration: Intent-oriented configuration lets users focus on the What rather than the How, and reserves latitude for automated systems achieve the desired state. Event-driven execution: Enables agile, reactive automated processes, and facilitates systems integration.
As new Cloud-Native techniques and technologies emerge, they will be incorporated into the Foundation’s portfolio of recommended practices, approaches, and projects.
|
|
|
Re: Agenda for upcoming CNCF meetings in Feb 2018
Thanks. I have a couple slides in the deck already, I may update them a bit before the meeting.
On Jan 30, 2018, at 9:16 AM, alexis richardson < alexis@...> wrote:
John,
yes, we can definitely cover that.
On
Tue, Jan 30, 2018 at 2:11 PM, John Belamaric <jbelamaric@...>
wrote:
Hi Alexis,
We planned to have the annual inception review for CoreDNS at the Feb 6 meeting. Is there still space on the agenda for that?
Thanks,
John
On Jan 29, 2018, at 4:53 AM, alexis richardson <alexis@...> wrote:
Hi everyone
Thank-you for a very well attended and productive TOC call on Jan
16th. The next call is on Feb 6th, in eight days time. This is a
call for Agenda items from the TOC community. I propose the following
rough draft agenda for Feb - shown below. If someone proposes
something more important or pressing, that will get tabled.
alexis
Feb 6
Theme: Project Status
Tiering:
* Graduation reviews: timeline to completion
* Inception to Incubation reviews: ditto
* Discuss project tiers:
- do we want to tweak criteria for entry / promotion
Inception > Incubation > Graduation
Attic
- Mature/Stable, slower moving projects
CNCF Github Org?
- do we need a Sandbox?
idea here is for all CNCF projects to share one sandbox
for super-early stage experiments that otherwise have
gone into K8s incubator
- Sandbox == Inception?
- Sandbox is a CNCF Github Org?
Health:
* Reviews & healthchecks
what / when / how?
* Service desk
what else is needed here?
* Project TLC WG?
RFC / Volunteers
Feb 20
Theme: Working Groups
* Purpose
* Scope / Authority
* Status / Progress
* Exit Criteria
|
|
|
Re: Agenda for upcoming CNCF meetings in Feb 2018
John, yes, we can definitely cover that.
toggle quoted messageShow quoted text
On Tue, Jan 30, 2018 at 2:11 PM, John Belamaric <jbelamaric@...> wrote: Hi Alexis,
We planned to have the annual inception review for CoreDNS at the Feb 6 meeting. Is there still space on the agenda for that?
Thanks,
John
On Jan 29, 2018, at 4:53 AM, alexis richardson <alexis@...> wrote:
Hi everyone
Thank-you for a very well attended and productive TOC call on Jan
16th. The next call is on Feb 6th, in eight days time. This is a
call for Agenda items from the TOC community. I propose the following
rough draft agenda for Feb - shown below. If someone proposes
something more important or pressing, that will get tabled.
alexis
Feb 6
Theme: Project Status
Tiering:
* Graduation reviews: timeline to completion
* Inception to Incubation reviews: ditto
* Discuss project tiers:
- do we want to tweak criteria for entry / promotion
Inception > Incubation > Graduation
Attic
- Mature/Stable, slower moving projects
CNCF Github Org?
- do we need a Sandbox?
idea here is for all CNCF projects to share one sandbox
for super-early stage experiments that otherwise have
gone into K8s incubator
- Sandbox == Inception?
- Sandbox is a CNCF Github Org?
Health:
* Reviews & healthchecks
what / when / how?
* Service desk
what else is needed here?
* Project TLC WG?
RFC / Volunteers
Feb 20
Theme: Working Groups
* Purpose
* Scope / Authority
* Status / Progress
* Exit Criteria
|
|
|
Re: Agenda for upcoming CNCF meetings in Feb 2018
Hi Alexis,
We planned to have the annual inception review for CoreDNS at the Feb 6 meeting. Is there still space on the agenda for that?
Thanks,
John
toggle quoted messageShow quoted text
On Jan 29, 2018, at 4:53 AM, alexis richardson <alexis@...> wrote:
Hi everyone
Thank-you for a very well attended and productive TOC call on Jan
16th. The next call is on Feb 6th, in eight days time. This is a
call for Agenda items from the TOC community. I propose the following
rough draft agenda for Feb - shown below. If someone proposes
something more important or pressing, that will get tabled.
alexis
Feb 6
Theme: Project Status
Tiering:
* Graduation reviews: timeline to completion
* Inception to Incubation reviews: ditto
* Discuss project tiers:
- do we want to tweak criteria for entry / promotion
Inception > Incubation > Graduation
Attic
- Mature/Stable, slower moving projects
CNCF Github Org?
- do we need a Sandbox?
idea here is for all CNCF projects to share one sandbox
for super-early stage experiments that otherwise have
gone into K8s incubator
- Sandbox == Inception?
- Sandbox is a CNCF Github Org?
Health:
* Reviews & healthchecks
what / when / how?
* Service desk
what else is needed here?
* Project TLC WG?
RFC / Volunteers
Feb 20
Theme: Working Groups
* Purpose
* Scope / Authority
* Status / Progress
* Exit Criteria
|
|
|
Re: [VOTE] Vitess project proposal (incubation)
Many of these companies have talked to us, and we are still in some form of conversation with some of them. The logos we've listed are only those from whom we've received explicit permission from.
PS: mineraftly is an aweseom find! LOL.
PPS: I missed Nozzle's contribution in my original response. Ironically, they are the most noteworthy contributors because they're refactoring our helm charts.
On 29 January 2018 at 21:04, Brian Grant via Lists.Cncf.Io <briangrant=google.com@...> wrote: FWIW, it looks like there is decent demand for something like Vitess (13790 commits) based on the number of companies that have implemented their own solutions:
|
|
|
Re: [VOTE] Vitess project proposal (incubation)
FWIW, it looks like there is decent demand for something like Vitess (13790 commits) based on the number of companies that have implemented their own solutions:
|
|
|
Re: [VOTE] Vitess project proposal (incubation)
toggle quoted messageShow quoted text
On Mon, Jan 29, 2018, 7:23 PM Bryan Cantrill < bryan@...> wrote:
|
|
|
Re: [VOTE] Vitess project proposal (incubation)
There's even Minecraft on Vitess :-)
On Mon, Jan 29, 2018 at 7:28 PM, Brian Grant via Lists.Cncf.Io <briangrant=google.com@...> wrote: To follow up on this, with some links for external confirmation:
I think some of the confusion arose due to data being sampled at different times. The original presentation to the TOC was last April, for instance. Slack presentation from 4-5 months ago. They are contributing heavily to vitess, as can be seen from the contribution stats I just sent, and even a small fraction of traffic was non-trivial.
Stichlabs has fully migrated production to Vitess: video.
IMO, the production usage bar is intended primarily to assess maturity and production-worthiness, and secondarily general applicability (though 3 users isn't really enough for that). I don't think maturity and production-worthiness are concerns in this case. I think better documenting production usage via case studies is something the CNCF could help with.
As with Prometheus, Envoy, and Jaegar, Vitess was developed over the last 7 years or so for Youtube's own use. It has become more relevant to other companies with the (comparatively recent) emergence of Kubernetes. If we're looking for more user-initiated projects, Vitess is one of those.
|
|
|
Re: [VOTE] Vitess project proposal (incubation)
To follow up on this, with some links for external confirmation:
I think some of the confusion arose due to data being sampled at different times. The original presentation to the TOC was last April, for instance. Slack presentation from 4-5 months ago. They are contributing heavily to vitess, as can be seen from the contribution stats I just sent, and even a small fraction of traffic was non-trivial.
Stichlabs has fully migrated production to Vitess: video.
IMO, the production usage bar is intended primarily to assess maturity and production-worthiness, and secondarily general applicability (though 3 users isn't really enough for that). I don't think maturity and production-worthiness are concerns in this case. I think better documenting production usage via case studies is something the CNCF could help with.
As with Prometheus, Envoy, and Jaegar, Vitess was developed over the last 7 years or so for Youtube's own use. It has become more relevant to other companies with the (comparatively recent) emergence of Kubernetes. If we're looking for more user-initiated projects, Vitess is one of those.
On Mon, Jan 29, 2018 at 6:41 PM, Sugu Sougoumarane <ssougou@...> wrote: Ah, I should have made this explicit in our slides, but here is the information to address your concerns about the graduation criteria: The following eight companies have vitess serving production traffic: YouTube Slack Hubspot Flipkart Stitch Labs Square (Cash App) BetterCloud Quiz of Kings
Of these, engineers from the following companies have made significant contributions to the vitess code base: YouTube Slack Hubspot Flipkart Square (Cash App) StitchLabs
Additionally, the following companies have started making contributions, while in the process of evaluating: Booking.com Github Pinterest (new)
There are also other companies listed in the adopters page. They are evaluating vitess with the intent to mainly use it. Finally, there are other companies, who are involved with Vitess at various levels, that wish to remain anonymous. So, we haven’t listed them here. Please let me know if this answers your questions, or if you have others.
|
|
|
Re: [VOTE] Vitess project proposal (incubation)
|
|
|
